62<strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong>to the Futureto agr<strong>of</strong>orestry and natural resources management<strong>in</strong>novations, because they arerelatively ‘knowledge <strong>in</strong>tensive’ and, unlikeGreen Revolution technologies, may notspread easily on their own. Draw<strong>in</strong>g on arange <strong>of</strong> expertise, Cooper and Denn<strong>in</strong>g(2000) identified 10 essential elementsfor scal<strong>in</strong>g up agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong>novations:farmer-centred research and extension approaches,technology options, build<strong>in</strong>glocal capacity, germplasm, market options,policy options, knowledge and <strong>in</strong>formationshar<strong>in</strong>g, learn<strong>in</strong>g from successes and failures,strategic partnerships, and facilitation(Figure 1).<strong>The</strong> objective <strong>of</strong> this chapter is to assessrecent lessons learned <strong>in</strong> scal<strong>in</strong>g upagr<strong>of</strong>orestry bene<strong>fit</strong>s, draw<strong>in</strong>g on threeStrategicpartnershipsLearn<strong>in</strong>g fromsuccess andfailurescase studies <strong>in</strong> Kenya, Zambia, and thePhilipp<strong>in</strong>es. Two <strong>of</strong> these, from Kenya andthe Philipp<strong>in</strong>es, were reported <strong>in</strong> Franzelet al. (2001a), but this chapter will showimportant developments s<strong>in</strong>ce then. Firstly,concepts and def<strong>in</strong>itions <strong>of</strong> scal<strong>in</strong>g up arereviewed. Secondly, the case studies arepresented, followed by a discussion <strong>of</strong>their use <strong>of</strong> the 10 fundamental elements.F<strong>in</strong>ally, conclusions are drawn andresearch <strong>challenge</strong>s are discussed.Scal<strong>in</strong>g up: Def<strong>in</strong>itions andconcepts<strong>The</strong>re is a proliferation <strong>of</strong> terms to describescal<strong>in</strong>g up (Gündel et al. 2001; Uv<strong>in</strong>and Miller 1996). For <strong>in</strong>stance, Uv<strong>in</strong> andMiller’s typology <strong>in</strong>volves 17 differentAvailablegermplasmsk<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>of</strong> scal<strong>in</strong>g up, focus<strong>in</strong>g variously onstructure, when a programme expandsits size; strategy or degree <strong>of</strong> political<strong>in</strong>volvement; and resource base, referr<strong>in</strong>gto organizational strength.In this chapter we follow Gündel et al.(2001), who adopt the IIRR (2000) def<strong>in</strong>ition<strong>of</strong> scal<strong>in</strong>g up, which notes that the‘scaled-up state’ can either occur spontaneouslyor because <strong>of</strong> the deliberate, plannedefforts <strong>of</strong> governments, non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) or other changeagents. Much can be learned from study<strong>in</strong>ghow spontaneous dissem<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong><strong>in</strong>novations takes place, and <strong>in</strong> particularthe role <strong>of</strong> farmer-to-farmer dissem<strong>in</strong>ation.Scal<strong>in</strong>g up is a communication process,and change agents have to understand howfarmers receive, analyse, and dissem<strong>in</strong>ate<strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong> order to facilitate it. <strong>The</strong>re isemerg<strong>in</strong>g literature on agricultural knowledgeand <strong>in</strong>formation systems, explor<strong>in</strong>ghow those <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the creation <strong>of</strong> agriculturalknowledge acquire, transmit andexchange <strong>in</strong>formation (Garforth 2001).MarketoptionsTechnologyoptionsCase studies from Kenya,Zambia, and the Philipp<strong>in</strong>esPolicyoptionsFacilitationFigure 1. Essential elements for scal<strong>in</strong>g up agr<strong>of</strong>orestry <strong>in</strong>novations.Source: Cooper and Denn<strong>in</strong>g (2000).SCALING UPAGROFORESTRYINNOVATIONSLocal<strong>in</strong>stitutionalcapacityKnowledge/<strong>in</strong>formationshar<strong>in</strong>gFarmer-centredresearch andextensionapproaches1. Fodder shrubs, Kenya<strong>The</strong> low quality and quantity <strong>of</strong> feedresources is a major constra<strong>in</strong>t to dairyfarm<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> central Kenya. Most farmersalso grow Napier grass as fodder, but it is<strong>in</strong>sufficient <strong>in</strong> prote<strong>in</strong> and the daily yield<strong>of</strong> cows fed on it is only around 8 litres.Commercial dairy meal is available butfarmers consider it expensive and mostdo not use it (Franzel et al. 2003).Development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>novationIn the early 1990s, researchers (from theKenya Agricultural Research Institute –KARI, the Kenya Forestry Research Institute
Chapter 7: Scal<strong>in</strong>g up the impact <strong>of</strong> agr<strong>of</strong>orestry63– KEFRI, and the <strong>World</strong> Agr<strong>of</strong>orestry Centre– ICRAF) and farmers around Embu, Kenya,tested several fodder shrubs. Most <strong>of</strong> thetrials were farmer-designed and managed.Calliandra calothyrsus emerged as the bestperform<strong>in</strong>g and most preferred by farmers.It was found to grow <strong>in</strong> a range <strong>of</strong>‘neglected niches’ on their farms, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong> hedges along <strong>in</strong>ternal and externalboundaries, around the homestead, alongthe contour for controll<strong>in</strong>g soil erosion,or <strong>in</strong>tercropped with Napier grass. Whenpruned to a height <strong>of</strong> 1 m, the shrubs didnot compete with adjacent crops. Grow<strong>in</strong>g500 shrubs <strong>in</strong>creased farmers’ <strong>in</strong>comes byaround US$98–124 per year. By the late1990s, two other shrub species, Morus alba(mulberry) and Leucaena trichandra, were<strong>in</strong>troduced to farmers follow<strong>in</strong>g successfulon-farm test<strong>in</strong>g (Franzel et al. 2003).Scal<strong>in</strong>g upBy 1999, 8 years after the <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>of</strong>fodder shrubs, about 1000 farmers aroundthe research sites had planted them. However,there was limited scope for reach<strong>in</strong>gall the 625 000 dairy farmers <strong>in</strong> Kenya;seed was scarce, and the farmers, extensionstaff and NGOs away from the onfarmtrials were not aware <strong>of</strong> the work.Dur<strong>in</strong>g 1999–2001, KARI, ICRAF and theInternational Livestock Research Institute(ILRI) collaborated <strong>in</strong> a project to scale upthe use <strong>of</strong> fodder shrubs <strong>in</strong> central Kenya.An extension facilitator, work<strong>in</strong>g with arange <strong>of</strong> government and NGO partners,assisted 180 farmer-development groups(compris<strong>in</strong>g 3 200 farmers across sevendistricts) to establish nurseries and plantfodder shrubs. This approach proved to bevery effective: by 2002, each farmer hadan average <strong>of</strong> 340 shrubs and had given<strong>in</strong>formation and plant<strong>in</strong>g material to an average<strong>of</strong> six other farmers. Sixty percent <strong>of</strong>participat<strong>in</strong>g farmers were women.Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 2002, a project f<strong>in</strong>anced bythe Forestry Research Programme <strong>of</strong> DFID(the UK’s Department for InternationalDevelopment) and implemented by theOxford Forestry Institute and ICRAF helpeda range <strong>of</strong> partner organizations to <strong>in</strong>creasethe adoption <strong>of</strong> fodder shrubs. By early2003, there were about 22 000 farmersplant<strong>in</strong>g fodder shrubs <strong>in</strong> Kenya and severalthousand <strong>in</strong> four other countries. Facilitatorsare help<strong>in</strong>g to tra<strong>in</strong> the extensionstaff <strong>of</strong> a range <strong>of</strong> different organizations,<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g government, NGOs, churches,community-based organizations, farmergroups and private-sector firms. <strong>The</strong> projectis also help<strong>in</strong>g to facilitate the emergence<strong>of</strong> private seed producers and dealers, andto help l<strong>in</strong>k them to buyers <strong>in</strong> areas whereseed demand is high (Franzel et al. 2003;Wambugu et al. 2001).2. Improved tree fallows, Zambia<strong>The</strong> plateau area <strong>of</strong> eastern Zambia ischaracterized by a flat to gently roll<strong>in</strong>glandscape, with annual ra<strong>in</strong>fall around1000 mm. Approximately half the farmerspractice ox cultivation, the others cultivateby hand hoe. Maize is the most importantcrop, and sunflower, groundnuts, cottonand tobacco are also grown.Surveys identified soil fertility as the farmers’ma<strong>in</strong> problem; fertilizer use had beencommon dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1980s but was <strong>in</strong>decl<strong>in</strong>e as farmers now lacked the cash topurchase it (Franzel et al. 2002; Howard etal. 1997; Kwesiga et al. 1999).Development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>novationIn 1987, a Zambia–ICRAF agr<strong>of</strong>orestryresearch project began research on improvedfallows, us<strong>in</strong>g Sesbania sesban.By 1995, several hundred farmers were<strong>in</strong>volved. In researcher-led trials, farmerschose among three different species andtwo different management options – <strong>in</strong>tercropp<strong>in</strong>gwith maize versus grow<strong>in</strong>g thetrees <strong>in</strong> pure stands. In farmer-led trials,farmers planted and managed the improvedfallows as they wished. Most farmersopted for a 2-year fallow and plantedtheir ma<strong>in</strong> food crop, maize, for twoseasons follow<strong>in</strong>g the fallow. Tephrosiavogelii, Cajanus cajan and Gliricidia sepiumwere the ma<strong>in</strong> fallow species used.Maize yields follow<strong>in</strong>g improved fallowsaveraged 3.6 t ha –1 , almost as high as forcont<strong>in</strong>uously cropped maize with fertilizer(4.4 t ha –1 ) and much higher than maizeplanted without fertilizer (1.0 t ha –1 ).Scal<strong>in</strong>g upExtension activities began <strong>in</strong> earnest <strong>in</strong>1996 when an extension specialist <strong>in</strong> theZambia–ICRAF project set up demonstrations,facilitated farmer-to-farmer visits,and tra<strong>in</strong>ed staff from the M<strong>in</strong>istry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture,several NGOs and developmentprojects <strong>in</strong> Eastern Prov<strong>in</strong>ce. <strong>The</strong> projecthelped launch an adaptive research anddissem<strong>in</strong>ation network, consist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> representativesfrom several organizations,farmers’ associations and projects (Katangaet al. 2002). <strong>The</strong> extension effort receiveda big boost with the start <strong>of</strong> a United StatesAgency for International Development(USAID)-f<strong>in</strong>anced agr<strong>of</strong>orestry project <strong>in</strong>1999, cover<strong>in</strong>g five districts. <strong>The</strong> Centrealso facilitated the visits <strong>of</strong> farmers fromMalawi, thus help<strong>in</strong>g to launch the practicethere (Böhr<strong>in</strong>ger et al. 1998). Scal<strong>in</strong>g upobjectives <strong>in</strong>cluded sensitization, build<strong>in</strong>ggrassroots capacities, develop<strong>in</strong>g effectivepartnerships, promot<strong>in</strong>g policies more conduciveto adoption, monitor<strong>in</strong>g and evaluation,and conduct<strong>in</strong>g research on the scal<strong>in</strong>gup process (Böhr<strong>in</strong>ger et al. 2003). By2001, more than 20 000 farmers <strong>in</strong> easternZambia had planted improved fallows(Kwesiga et al. 2003).
- Page 4 and 5:
CitationGarrity, D., A. Okono, M. G
- Page 6 and 7:
Enhancing Environmental ServicesCha
- Page 8 and 9:
viWorld Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 10 and 11:
viiiWorld Agroforestry into the Fut
- Page 13 and 14:
Agroforestry and the Future
- Page 15 and 16:
Keywords:Millennium Development Goa
- Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1: Science-based agroforest
- Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 1: Science-based agroforest
- Page 21 and 22:
Trees and Markets
- Page 23 and 24: Keywords:Dacryodes edulis, Irvingia
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 27 and 28: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 31 and 32: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 33 and 34: Chapter 2: Trees and markets for ag
- Page 35 and 36: Keywords:Perennial tree crops, plan
- Page 37 and 38: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 39 and 40: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 41 and 42: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 47: Chapter 3: The future of perennial
- Page 50 and 51: 38World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 52 and 53: 40World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 54 and 55: “Trees influence landscape scaled
- Page 56 and 57: 44World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 58 and 59: 46World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 60 and 61: 48World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 62 and 63: 50World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 65 and 66: Keywords:Agroforestry, improved fal
- Page 67 and 68: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 69 and 70: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 71 and 72: Chapter 6: Agroforestry innovations
- Page 73: Keywords:Extension, farmer-centred
- Page 77 and 78: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 81 and 82: Chapter 7: Scaling up the impact of
- Page 83 and 84: Keywords:Policy, land management, a
- Page 85 and 86: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 87 and 88: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 89 and 90: Chapter 8: Policies for improved la
- Page 91 and 92: Chapter 9Land and People:Working Gr
- Page 93: Chapter 9: Land and people81• sca
- Page 96 and 97: “Forest conservation is no longer
- Page 98 and 99: 86World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 100 and 101: 88World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 102 and 103: 90World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 104 and 105: 92World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 106 and 107: 94World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 108 and 109: 96World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 110 and 111: 98World Agroforestry into the Futur
- Page 112 and 113: 100World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 115 and 116: Keywords:Agroforestry, buffering wa
- Page 117 and 118: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 119 and 120: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 121 and 122: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 123 and 124: Chapter 12: Watershed functions in
- Page 125 and 126:
Keywords:Agroforestry, vulnerabilit
- Page 127 and 128:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 129 and 130:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 131 and 132:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 133:
Chapter 13: Opportunities for linki
- Page 136 and 137:
124World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 138 and 139:
126World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 140 and 141:
“Agroforestry can and does playa
- Page 142 and 143:
130World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 144 and 145:
132World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 147 and 148:
Keywords:Educational impact, sustai
- Page 149 and 150:
Chapter 16: Capacity building in ag
- Page 151 and 152:
Chapter 16: Capacity building in ag
- Page 153 and 154:
Keywords:Networking, research-exten
- Page 155 and 156:
Chapter 17: Institutional collabora
- Page 157 and 158:
Chapter 17: Institutional collabora
- Page 159 and 160:
Keywords:Capacity building, agrofor
- Page 161 and 162:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 163 and 164:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 165 and 166:
Chapter 18: Building capacity for r
- Page 167 and 168:
Keywords:E-learning, agricultural e
- Page 169 and 170:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 171 and 172:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 173 and 174:
Chapter 19: Can e-learning support
- Page 175 and 176:
Chapter 20Strengthening Institution
- Page 177:
Chapter 20: Strengthening instituti
- Page 180 and 181:
168“The biological characteristic
- Page 182 and 183:
170World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 184 and 185:
172World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 186 and 187:
174World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 188 and 189:
176World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 190 and 191:
178World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 192 and 193:
180World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 194 and 195:
182World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 196 and 197:
184World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 198 and 199:
186World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 200 and 201:
188World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 202 and 203:
190World Agroforestry into the Futu
- Page 205 and 206:
Author ContactsFahmudin Agusisri@in
- Page 207 and 208:
Acronyms and AbbreviationsACIARAFTP
- Page 210:
CreditsFront cover photo: Karen Rob
- Page 213:
World Agroforestry into the Future